zlacker

>>babelf+(OP)
> Lot of people critiquing this, but you can't deny the success.

You could say that about literally any shady business. Imagine seeing a PDF proving tobacco leaders knew for decades that it caused cancer and saying what you did.

Being monetarily successful does not mean you’re good or shouldn’t be criticised.

>>latexr+im
Ignoring the ethics of Mr Beast, he is producing real videos at an incredibly high volume and they consistently do numbers.

None of those videos is easy to make.

Sure, it's maybe not great to be so impressed by logistics or supply chain of a tobacco company, but from a business and systems view some of it is interesting

>>wrsh07+QD
You're conflating "efficiency" with "success"

Just say he's "efficient" at what he does (descriptive) but not "successful" (value judgment)

>>oulipo+Id1
Sorry, I'm not sure where I used either term

If you want, I will though: in the document, Jimmy says he wants to create the biggest YouTube channel. By that metric (his own!) he has succeeded.

>>wrsh07+aG3
His own... but not yours. Yet you still use that term